Report

What’s at Stake for Elections at the Supreme Court

Last updated: October 27, 2025

The Supreme Court is hearing — or could soon hear — several important cases that could reshape how Americans vote and who is represented.

Before the Court: Louisiana v. Callais

What’s at issue:

Louisiana adopted a congressional map in 2024 with two majority-Black districts, following federal court orders that found its previous map likely violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The previous map included only one majority-Black district (out of six districts in the state), even though the state’s population is roughly one-third Black. Six self-described “non-African American” voters sued, arguing that using race to draw congressional districts violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Historically, the VRA has been interpreted to allow the use of race in creating districts to prevent racial gerrymandering. The state of Louisiana and the Trump administration joined the six plaintiffs, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund is representing the interests of Black Louisianans in defending the state maps.

Why it matters:

The Supreme Court has significantly weakened the VRA in recent years. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could effectively strike down or substantially weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This law has ensured communities of color have fair representation for decades. This decision could lead states like Florida to eliminate its remaining Section 2-compliant districts. In fact, experts estimate as many as 19 U.S. House districts (mainly in the South) could be redrawn to dilute the voices of people of color in those states.  

Most media coverage has focused on the impact on congressional districts. But the effect on state legislative districts could also be profound. If the Court weakens Section 2, states may draw new state legislative maps to increase partisan advantage and dilute the voting power of minority voters in state legislative elections. State legislatures pass far more legislation each year than Congress, so changing the composition of those legislatures could have far-reaching consequences.

What to watch:

SCOTUS heard oral arguments on October 15, 2025. Close Court observers reported that the Supreme Court appears poised to side with the plaintiffs and further curtail the Voting Rights Act. A decision is expected by June 2026; however, some states may preemptively draw new maps ahead of the ruling to fast-track new districts before the next election.

Before the Court: Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

What’s at issue:

A member of Congress from Illinois and two candidates for presidential elector sued the state of Illinois to challenge the state’s law that deems mail ballots timely as long as they are postmarked by Election Day, even if election officials receive them after Election Day. Unlike Wetzel, described below, this case does not deal with the substance of the issue. The question the Supreme Court will answer in Bost is a procedural one: whether candidates for federal office have standing to challenge state election rules in their state before the election in which they will run.

Why it matters:

A decision in favor of plaintiffs would give candidates more flexibility to challenge election laws before Election Day. It would also allow more disputed issues to be resolved on the front end, and potentially decrease the number of post-election challenges. If we were to rewind the clock and apply such a decision to the recent North Carolina Supreme Court race, for example, Judge Jefferson Griffin would have been able to file his lawsuit before the election, and the issue could have been decided before voters cast their ballots.

What to watch:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 8, 2025, and we expect a ruling before June 2026. If the plaintiffs win, the case will be remanded to the trial court to hear the substantive issue. Based on the line of questioning during the argument, the Court is likely to agree with the plaintiffs and allow federal candidates to challenge election rules before the election. 

In the Pipeline: Republican National Committee v. Wetzel

What’s at issue:

The Mississippi Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, and two Mississippi voters are challenging a Mississippi law allowing mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted. Under Mississippi law, those completed mail ballots are counted as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day and received within five business days after the election. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law establishing a “single Election Day” requires all ballots to be received by Election Day, even if mailed on time. The state of Mississippi appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Why it matters:

Mail ballot return deadlines vary across the country. Sixteen states and D.C. currently have postmark deadlines with grace periods for all mail voters, and 29 additional states offer similar postmark deadlines for military and overseas voters. There is a logic to these laws – once the ballot has left the voter’s hands, the voter no longer has any control over when it arrives. In states lacking alternative mail ballot return options (such as drop boxes), this grace period is crucial for ensuring that all eligible voters’ ballots are counted. In Mississippi, for example, the legislature has banned drop boxes, meaning voters casting mail ballots must return those ballots by mail or in person at their election office. Reducing or eliminating the grace period has a significant impact on military and overseas voters who depend on it to ensure their ballots are returned to their home state.

What to watch:

The Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case, but could do so at any time. If the Court grants the appeal, the case would be scheduled for argument before April 2026. Should the Court rule that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day, then the 16 states that currently have postmark deadlines would need to repeal those laws.  If the Supreme Court declines to take the case, the Fifth Circuit decision will remain in effect in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, meaning postmark deadlines will be outlawed in those states. Currently, Texas and Mississippi both have postmark deadlines. Though the decision is not binding in other states, it will almost certainly be used as a scare tactic to encourage other states to repeal their postmark deadline laws.

In the Pipeline: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe

What’s at issue:

Native American voters sued North Dakota, arguing that the state’s legislative redistricting plan unlawfully dilutes the voices of Native American voters. The plaintiffs claim these legislative maps violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. After a trial court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, the 8th Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that private citizens do not have the right to bring such lawsuits.

Why it matters:

Historically, nearly all Section 2 lawsuits have been initiated by private plaintiffs. These private suits are often the only means to address state maps that dilute the voting strength of minority groups. If the Supreme Court rules that private plaintiffs can no longer sue under Section 2, then enforcement will be left solely to the Department of Justice. This ruling would give states a free hand to draw districts that effectively exclude minority groups from representation altogether. This case — combined with Louisiana v. Callais, described above — could effectively eliminate the last major provision of the federal Voting Rights Act and transform congressional districts, particularly in southern states.

What to watch:

The Court could decide to hear this case at any time. If the Court grants the appeal, it would be scheduled for argument before April 2026. The Supreme Court issued a stay of the 8th Circuit’s decision – meaning that plaintiffs can continue to bring Section 2 lawsuits while the Court is deliberating whether to hear the case. If the Court decides not to hear the case, the stay will be lifted and the 8th Circuit decision will stand.

In the Pipeline: Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes

What’s at issue:

Arizona voters challenged two 2022 laws, and a district struck down several proof-of-citizenship provisions, including provisions that prohibited citizens from voting for president and voting by mail unless they showed a passport or birth certificate (Arizona state law already prohibits citizens from voting for state candidates unless they show proof of citizenship); required officials to throw out all state registration forms that did not include proof of citizenship (even though these voters would still qualify for some federal elections); and required county recorders to cancel voter registrations if they “have reason to believe” someone is not a citizen. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling, striking down these provisions for violating the U.S. Constitution and federal election laws. On October 17, 2025, the Arizona Senate President (who is running for state Attorney General in 2026) announced the legislature would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

Why it matters:

Arizona is the only state that both (1) requires voters to show a passport or birth certificate to register to vote, and (2) is subject to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). In the past, the Supreme Court held that the NVRA prohibits states from requiring proof of citizenship for federal elections, so this case is a test of whether the Court will change or narrow that interpretation. It is worth noting that six states (including New Hampshire, which recently enacted a proof-of-citizenship requirement)  are not subject to the NVRA at all.  

If the Court takes the case and sides with Arizona, it will remove a significant barrier to states passing proof-of-citizenship requirements for federal elections. This case could open the door for more states to follow Arizona’s lead and potentially exclude the many millions of U.S. citizens who don’t have an original birth certificate or a valid U.S. passport.

What to watch:

The appeal announcement is very recent, and Arizona has yet to file its petition seeking review with the Supreme Court. If the Court decides to hear this case, it will probably be scheduled in its October 2026 term. While this plays out in the courts, Voting Rights Lab will continue to work with our partners to fight active proof-of-citizenship legislation in Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania.